In January, the U.S. Department of Defense held a
futuristic war game session in Colorado Springs and concluded that
America's weaknesses in space could invite attack. That same month,
the bipartisan, congressionally mandated Commission to Assess
United States National Security Space Management and Organization,
chaired by now-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, warned that
America faces the possibility of a "Space Pearl Harbor" attack
because it cannot protect its interests in space. Such a warning
demands action.

The
United States operates over 300 active satellites, nearly half the
total number in space; 60 percent are commercially operated, 20
percent are military, and the remaining 20 percent are
government-civilian. As this dependence on satellites grows,
hostile nations will find it increasingly attractive to target them
in order to disrupt U.S. daily life and military operations.

America's space assets gave it an
unparalleled advantage during the Persian Gulf War, and many
nations are working to gain similar capabilities. While Russia has
been in space longer than America, both Iran and North Korea are
developing space programs, and other nations like India and China
are pursuing well-established programs.

As
more nations gain access to space, monitoring that access and
guaranteeing that it will be used peacefully become more difficult.
Commercial launches by Russia, China, Ukraine, and international
efforts account for almost 30 percent of launches worldwide. A
growing number of nations and companies are offering space
services--everything from launching satellites to giving other
nations, groups, or individuals access to their existing satellites
or satellite reconnaissance. During the Gulf War, the French
company SPOT Imaging agreed not to give Iraq access to its
satellite imagery. In the future, nations may not be so easily
compelled by U.S. interests. The Secretary of Defense, who has only
begun to define the Administration's space policy, must ensure that
the new policy guarantees reliable, cost-effective, and assured
access to space.

Space Access and National
SecurityAmerica's commercial, civil, and military reliance on space
inevitably will draw attacks from hostile powers that see its
undefended capability as an Achilles heel, as Chinese military
writings make clear. Adversaries will target America's military
satellites to destroy critical infrastructure, and civilian systems
to disrupt American life. Exploding a nuclear warhead in space
would obliterate satellites nearby and release enough radiation to
destroy other satellites in low-Earth orbit within months. Hostile
nations that have ballistic missiles could explode warheads filled
with pellets, sand, or shrapnel within 100 meters of a satellite,
destroying it on impact. Currently, over 20 nations possess or are
developing ground-based lasers capable of disrupting satellite
signals. Reportedly, a British satellite was thrown out of orbit by
invading computer hackers (the British government denies this
account).

Much
as air dominance has been vital in warfare since World War II,
space control or even space dominance may prove decisive in future
wars. Whether the United States needs to protect its assets in
space, deny access to others, or repair or replace vital components
of its space networks, it must rapidly deploy the satellites and
tools necessary to do so.

One
of the first steps in ensuring U.S. pre-eminence in space is to
develop low-cost and reliable means of putting satellites into
orbit. The most promising way to achieve this is to develop a
reusable launch vehicle with civil, military, and commercial
uses.

America's Declining Launch
InfrastructureBoth America's expendable rocket boosters and its existing
reusable launch vehicle, the Space Shuttle, are wholly inadequate
to support a modern space program. The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) traditionally spends 10 times more to
upgrade the Shuttle than to develop new vehicles, which severely
inhibits its ability to develop launch alternatives. America's
launch infrastructure is:

Too costly. NASA advertised the Space
Shuttle in the 1970s as an inexpensive way to access space, but it
costs NASA approximately $10,000 to put one pound of payload into
orbit. NASA predicted that routine manned space flights would cost
$10 million to $20 million per launch, but each launch today costs
around $500 million. It costs the Pentagon approximately $72
million per launch to put a payload into space on a traditional
expendable rocket booster.

Based on unreliable technology. On
June 2, a booster failure caused the destruction of the X-43A,
NASA's revolutionary unmanned aircraft. In July 2000, a booster
rocket failure caused a national missile defense test to be aborted
before the new technology could be tested. Such problems add to the
failures encountered in conventional satellite launches.

Poor turnaround time. NASA expected to
launch the Shuttle from either coast up to 50 times per year, with
only two weeks between missions. Today, the Shuttle can be launched
only from Florida, and it takes at least four months to prepare for
each mission. The program is lucky to complete eight launches a
year.

In
the past five years, Washington has cut two programs that promised
low-cost, reliable, and rapid space access. The X-33 program had
nearly completed its prototype when it was cancelled this year due
to lack of funds. The prototype would have taken off like a rocket
and landed like a plane. Unlike the Shuttle, it would not have
required additional tanks or boosters for each launch and would
have relied on newer, more efficient engine technology. The Delta
Clipper Experimental (DC-X/A), which first flew in 1993, is a
one-third size model of a large single-stage-to-orbit launch
vehicle that launches and lands vertically, like a rocket. It flew
12 times, including twice within 26 hours, before it was cancelled
after being damaged in a flight test.

During the early 1990s, these programs
were driven by projected increases in the demand for launch
services. However, when that demand dried up, so did funding,
despite national security implications.

Next StepsThe United States must be prepared to support its space-based
infrastructure should it come under attack. Many adversaries would
be deterred from taking hostile action against U.S. space-based
assets if they knew their attempts would be futile. The
Administration should renew America's innovative space launch
vehicle projects as soon as possible. The first step should be to
include adequate funding in the President's upcoming amendment to
the FY 2002 Department of Defense budget for a reinvigorated X-33
program under the Air Force and a new program based on the Delta
Clipper Experimental project.

Jack Spencer is Policy Analyst for
Defense and National Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom
Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage
Foundation.